Neuro-Linguistic Programming Models Summary (07 of 14)

Necessity / Possibility / Impossibility / Desire

Modal Operators (MO)s

1. What are they anyway? What do they do, and how do they work?

A MO is “mode of operating,” a way of being in the world and relating to part of it, or all of it. A MO is a verb that modifies another verb, so it is always followed by another verb. “I have to work.” “I can become successful.”

Since a verb always describes an activity or process, a MO is a verb that modifies how an activity is done. A MO functions in the same way that an adverb does, and perhaps they should be called adverbs. Adverbs sometimes precede, and sometimes follow, the verb that is modified, while MOs always precede it, and this is part of the power of a MO. It sets a general orientation or global direction that is usually largely independent of content and context that follows, and it does this before we know what the activity is. A MO modulates our experience of much (or all) of what we do in very important ways. Think of any small activity, and describe it in a brief phrase, such as “looking out the window.” Next say the following sentences to yourself, and become aware of your experience of each of them, noticing how your experience changes with each sentence, particularly where your attention is goes, and how you feel:

“I want to look out the window.”

“I have to look out the window.”

“I can look out the window.”

“I choose to look out the window.”

The “mode of operating” in the first is to be pulled toward the activity, with a sense of pleasure and anticipation. The “mode of operating” in the second is to be pushed toward it, usually from behind, and usually also with some sense of not wanting to do it. (Thanks to John McWhirter for pointing out this push / pull parameter of motivation.)

The last two are somewhat different; “Can” simply directs your attention to alternate avenues of possibility. In addition to “looking out the window,” other directions get my attention. “Choose” presupposes these alternatives, focusing more on the internal experience of selecting between those avenues of possibility.

2. How many kinds, or categories of MO are there, and what would you name each kind?

I would list the four categories below: (with examples).

Motivation:

The first two have to do with being motivated.

a. Necessity: “should,” “must,” “have to.”

b. Desire: “wish,” “want,” “need”

Options:

The second two have to do with options that can be chosen in order to satisfy the motivation.

c. Possibility: “can,” “able to,” “capable.”

d. Choice: “choose,” “select,” “decide.”

Desire and / or necessity motivates us to change, and possibility and / or choice makes it possible. MOs of necessity and (im)possibility are the ones given most emphasis in many NLP trainings, because very frequently they are the basis for significant limitations. People often feel stuck and trapped by “have tos,” and limited by “cant’s,” and these are the most obvious kinds of limiting beliefs that people have.

MOs of desire and choice are often de-emphasized, or even ignored, but they are equally important, and they are a mirror-image to necessity and impossibility. For instance. when someone experiences a “have to,” usually it is unpleasant, and s/he wants to have other choices. Put another way, “have to” and “not possible” are equivalent to “not possible to choose other more desired alternatives.”

Importance:

Since choosing between alternative possibilities, in alignment with our needs and desires, is fundamental to our survival and happiness, any limitation or reduction in these abilities will significantly limit our ability to have a good life. Every belief in our capabilities will have a MO in it, and many limitations will have either a MO of necessity or a negation of another MO.

This is the kind of difference that MOs not only describe, but also create as we talk to ourselves internally. It can be the crucial difference between someone who lives a life feeling as if they are an incapable, helpless victim of events, and one who experiences a world full of anticipation and opportunities for satisfaction of needs and desires. Working at the level of MOs, and the beliefs that they are embedded in, is usually at a considerably larger chunk size than working at the content level of a particular limitation, and because of this, the changes that are made will generalize much more widely.

Intensity:

Each of these categories includes words that express various degrees of intensity – even though people often limit themselves by reducing this wide spectrum to a crude either/or digital distinction. In addition to the words used in each category, the nonverbal intonation can also indicate the degree of intensity, and is often much more significant than the words.

a. Necessity has a relatively narrow range of intensity, but there is a definite difference between “absolutely must” and “should,” or “ought to.” Since many people think they should do things that they seldom or never actually do, there are “necessities” that are less than absolute.

b. Desire has perhaps the widest range of intensity, ranging from a faint inclination to smoking lust!

c. Possibility is not a digital distinction (possible / impossible) as it is often taught, but can also vary through a wide range, from very likely (nearly certain) to very unlikely, (improbable, but still possible).

d. Choice, too, can be artificially reduced to a simple limiting either / or (and there are a few circumstances in which this is perhaps an accurate description of the situation). But usually there is a wide range of choices, a multiplicity of options, not only of what to do, but of how to do it, where to do it, when to do it, with whom to do it, and why to do it.

3. How are they linked to, or related to, each other?

(I have found two major ways, one inherent, and one that is optional.)

Inherent linkage:

Choice and necessity both presuppose possibility, but desire does not. It is ridiculous to say that a person can choose or must do something that is impossible. This inherent linkage can be quite useful. For instance, sometimes a person is tortured by thinking that they should do or choose something which is actually not possible for them – at least at the moment – but they don’t realize the logical contradiction.

To work with this situation, first you can pace the “should,” or the “choose” and even strengthen it. “So you really believe that you should do X.” Then establish in their experience that it is impossible for them to do X (at least at this time, in their present state of development, finances, etc.).

After doing this preparation, you can put the two together by asking, “How is it that you think that you should do X, when you know that it is impossible?” If the preparation was done thoroughly, this is one of those times when you can almost see smoke coming out of the client’s ears, as the two beliefs collide, the contradiction becomes apparent, and the “should” (and the problem) vanishes.

However, desire does not presuppose possibility; quite often we desire something that is not possible. This fact is the source of much human misery, since we can ardently desire something that is not possible. But this is also the source of human progress, as we are motivated to seek and discover ways to do what was previously not possible.

Optional linkage:

Some kinds of linkages are not inherent, but learned.

1. In the first of these, people simply combine MOs sequentially. “I have to choose,” is quite different from “I can choose,” (a bit redundant, since choosing presupposes possibility, but it does support the person’s sense of their capability.). People often say, “I want to be able to,” or “I need to choose,” or “I might have to,” but there are many other such combinations that very few people use, such as “I can choose to have to,” “I choose to not want,” and some of these are very empowering. Of course it is one thing to recoginize this kind of possibility, and quite another to access or create an experience of it, but recognition of the possibility is a very useful first step.

With four categories of MOs, and including their negations, there are 64 possibilities for these linkages (including the somewhat repetitive “choose to choose,” and “choose to not choose,” etc.) and it is useful to systematically write them all down, and experience what they are like. Some will seem familiar and “sensible,” but the ones that seem strange, or bizarre will be the ones you can learn the most from, because they stretch your map of what is possible – even if some of them are not particularly useful. This is a great way to sensitize yourself to the impact of how you and your clients are now linking MOs, and to experience the impact of the linkages that you seldom use, or never even consider using.

2. A second (and very similar) kind of linkage is to link two MOs sequentially, in an “if-then” cause-effect chain, such as “If I want to, I can.” or “If I have to, I won’t.” Knowing how a person typically links MOs gives you very valuable information about how their experience is limited, and what kind of situations will likely be troublesome. These linkages, like most generalizations, are often uncontextualized, and easily become rather global beliefs that are applied across a lot of different content and contexts.

Again, most people do not use certain linkages very often, and many of them can be very empowering. “If I choose to, I will,” “If I have to, I desire to.” “If I want to, I don’t have to.” Because these generalizations typically apply so widely in a person’s life, this kind of change can have a powerful and widespread impact on attitude and behavior.

Of course some of these linkages are much more useful than others, but if someone uses only a few choices out of 64, that is a pretty severe limitation in what is possible for them, and exploring additional possibilities can be very empowering.

Self / Other:

In the dicussion above, we presupposed that the person appplied the MOs to him / herself. If we add another person in relationship, we can get another 64 combinations, such as, “If you want me to, I have to,” or “If I demand, you should.” The applications for couple therapy (whether or not the other member of the couple is present) should be obvious.

Although linkages of two modal operators are most frequent, a linkage of three is not uncommon, and even more are possible. “If I have to, I can choose to want to.” Here there is an even greater variety of possibilities (256) and most of us only use a few of them. With more than one other person, as in families, it even becomes even more complicated – and interesting. “If he says I have to X, but she wants Y, I can’t do Z.” (another 256 possibilities here!). You don’t have to memorize all these possibilities; with recognition that these can be very important, and a little practice to sensitize your perceptions, you can simply recognize them, and try them on to realize how a particular sequence works.

4. What kind of motivation is indicated by each MO?

Necessity and desire are the clearest. Desire always pulls us toward the object of desire. Necessity apparently pushes us toward something, but more often it actually pushes us away from what will happen if we don’t do it. Of course, much motivation includes both these aspects, but it is useful to separate them in order to think about them. The MOs that a client uses can alert us to what they are noticing, and what they are deleting in their experience.

Possibility and choice do not indicate any particular motivation. One can choose possible activities out of either desire or necessity, or both. On the other hand, if we had no needs or desires, possibility and choice would be totally irrelevant, so there is always some motivation presupposed or implied when we think about possibility and choice.

5. How can each kind of MO be understood as indicating a specific kind of incongruence?

All the MOs express what might be called a counterfactual state of affairs. They all indicate a situation that does not (at the moment) exist, but that could exist in the future (or could not actually exist, but can nevertheless be imagined as happening in the future) so this is one form of sequential incongruence.

If you have to, it means that you haven’t yet. (If you had already done it. you wouldn’t have to.) Even in the past tense, “I had to” expresses the situation at the moment of having to, not the subsequent action. In a repetitive action that one has to do, like breathing, what one has to do is to take the next breath, not the previous one.

Likewise if you desire something, you don’t have it yet. (If you had it already, you could enjoy it, but not desire it.)

If something is possible, that means that it is potential, but not actual. Some of us used to joke about the “human potential movement,” that it was all potential, and very little movement (and some of it wasn’t very human, either!). “I can do it” is quite different from “I have done it.” Of course, having done something is a powerful basis for assuming that I can do it in the future – and this is why it can be so useful to install a change in the past, so that it is experienced as having already happened.

At the moment of choosing, the activity that is chosen has not yet happened. (Even choosing between things, rather than activities, implies some kind of activity in relation to them.) In choice there is always an additional incongruity in that we are drawn (or pushed) toward two or more alternatives. In choosing one, the one that is not chosen is lost, and whatever needs or desires this alternative might have satisfied have to go unsatisfied, at least temporarily.

6. What kind of incongruence is indicated by a person when they use one kind of MO verbally and express a different one nonverbally?

These indicate a simultaneous incongruence between the conscious (verbal) words and the unconscious (nonverbal). If a person says, “I can do that,” in a whining voice and slumped shoulders, it is pretty likely that they don’t actually believe it, and will not actually do it. As with all NLP work, the nonverbal is often a much better indicator of the unconscious aspects of behavior, and what is actually going on. As John Grinder used to say, “All words are to be taken as unsubstantiated rumor unless confirmed by nonverbal behavior.” The verbal MO may or may not be a reliable indicator of the actual MO being experienced. Being sensitive to the nonverbal indicators of the MO gives much more reliable information about the client’s experience.

There is a useful exercise we have used for years that sensitizes trainees to both verbal and nonverbal MOs. In groups of 3, one person says a sentence using one kind of MO (or its negation) verbally, while expressing a different kind of MO (or its negaition) nonverbally. One of the others in the trio identifies the verbal MO, and the other the nonverbal MO – and later each of the others identifies both.

7. How it can be useful to change a person’s experience by suggesting replacing one modal operator with another, and why is it useful?

A MO, like accessing cues, is both a result of internal processing, and also a way to elicit it. Asking a person to say, “I won’t” rather than “I can’t,” was one of Fritz Perls, favorite ways to get people to take more responsibility for the implicit choices that they made, and feel more empowered by recognizing their ability to choose.

Sometimes changing a MO brings about a congruent change in attitude immediately. More often a client will experience incongruence. But even then it can be a very useful experiment that offers at least a glimpse of an alternate way of living in the world. The client can try it out, and find out what it would be like if it were true for him / her. The objections that arise will provide valuable information about what other aspects of the person’s beliefs need some attention in order to make the change appropriate and lasting.

8. What MO is operating in an experience of complete and total congruence?

This is my favourite, and it is a trick question. Think of a situation in your life when you experienced total congruence about doing something. When you are totally congruent, it is POSSIBLE to, you WANT to, you CHOOSE to, and paradoxically, you also HAVE to, so the answer is all of them (or perhaps none of them). Or to put it another way, which has a rather mystic flavour, it is not a mode of operating, (which always indicates at least some bias and incongruence), it is just operating, pure and simple, unmodulated by a mode.

9. What else can you predict about a person’s experience when they use a MO?

I asked this open-ended question in the hope of learning something new. But with only two responses, I don’t have much to report. When education isn’t a two-way street, it’s likely to become a dead-end street. One of my favorite quotations recently is that: “None of us is as smart as all of us.” Given the presentation above, what else can you predict now?

Personal Interest

Who, gossip / where, decorations / what, materialistic / why, information / when, time / how, activity

Perfection / Optimisation / Skepticism

• Perhaps you'd be inclined to just train the best you can with the time you have available, and to be content with simply participating in the race regardless of your time?
• Are you maybe the type of person who wouldn't contemplate that kind of endeavour at all because you feel you'd simply fail and embarrass yourself?
• People who adopt the perfectionism approach:Never feel satisfied with their performance or achievement.
• Tend to frustrate themselves by setting goals that are unrealistically high.
• Are typically focused on the end result primarily, and rob themselves of the joy and the experience of the challenge as part of the process on their way toward that result.
• Are prone to making harsh judgments against themselves and others when their high standards are not met.
• Can tend to procrastinate as a defence mechanism against performing a task poorly ... "Best not to attempt it at all rather than try and fail."
• Tend to start projects well, but then get distracted and frustrated by the flaws, or weighed down by the details.People who adopt the optimisation approach:
• Embrace a more pragmatic approach to achieving their goals.
• Just work on doing the best they can with the materials, skills and time at their disposal, and not fretting about things beyond that.Tend to break down goals into small steps so that they can enjoy incremental stages of success along the way.
• Appreciate the value of finding joy in the journey as much as in the result or outcome.
• Are good at going with the flow and tend to achieve good results because they are not overly concerned about producing the "perfect" result.
• Run the risk of ignoring legitimate problems and limitations as a result of indulging a positive mentality that is taken to an unrealistic extreme.People who adopt a defeatist approach:
• Prefer to avoid the business of goal setting and achieving altogether, and view the whole subject through pessimistic lenses.
• Don't think about their future much and fail to take constructive steps toward bringing it about.
• Avoid participating in attempting to better themselves or their strategies because they expect the worst to happen anyway.People who adopt the realist approach:
• Relate to goals only in terms of information and facts.
• Focus less on the dreaming and visualising component of goal-setting and focus on the bare facts involved.

Do so in primarily a sensory-based manner.This Meta-Program is useful when it comes to predicting the measure of a person's perseverance and tenacity.

It helps us determine at which point they will"throw in the towel" and concede defeat in the pursuit of their goals.It also helps us understand the process in which a person sets goals in the first place, how they chase after those goals, and how they identify and measure their success in achieving them. This Meta-Program is activated whenever a person is asked to talk about a personal goal that he or she has set.Whichever approach is in operation, the person in question tends to think of himof herself as the only real realist. This stands to reason when each person uses his or her own "reality strategy" to define what is "real" ... reality strategy referring to his or her model of the world.

VALUE BUYING SORT

When dealing the business of buying or deciding to buy something, there are typically four values that are in operation. These values tend to be at the forefront of people's minds when they are reaching a decision with regard to whether or not to purchase something. They are: cost, quality, time and convenience.

Which of the aforementioned factors, or combination thereof, tend to be your primary consideration(s) when you are contemplating making a purchase? Different people will have different areas of focus as they make their purchases.Some people will employ a combination of these values to aide them in reaching a decision. When these values are applied to the matter of buying something, they are often at odds with each another. Sometimes a person will start out focusing on one value like convenience, but later find other values like cost and/or quality impacting their decision more than they expected they would.

RESPONSIBILITY

There are different ways in which people think about, behave and feel with regard to the concept of responsibility. Some people want and are drawn to responsibility and therefore move toward it, and think about behaviour, language and feelings in terms of feeling responsible for things.Others have no desire for responsibility and find the notion of it very unattractive.For these people, the idea of responsibility elicits strong feelings of discomfort and even pain.People who are inclined this way move away from responsibility, and even consistently shift blame away from themselves in order to not have to deal with it. They even consider other people or situations responsible for their own attitudes, feelings and conduct.

When you contemplate the idea of having and owning responsibility in the personal or professional areas of your life, what sorts of emotions are stirred up within you?

• Have you ever been blamed for something that went terribly wrong, and ifso, how did that experience make you feel?
• On the other hand, can you think of an instance where being held responsible was a positive experience for you ... one where it felt good to be affirmed asa reliable and dependable person?
• Having the capacity to respond points to a foundational human characteristic.We can think about this ability to respond in two ways:
• Responsibility for self, and
• Responsibility to others. The first concept speaks of accountability. Here we refer to the idea of owning and accepting responsibility for our own actions. This has to do with the things that we have direct control and influence over. The second points to relationship.Here we talk about how we relate to others ... how we communicate with and treat them. This refers to our "circle of influence", or the things that we are able to indirectly change and influence.People who adopt an over-responsible approach:Take on the role of a caretaker.
• Are efficient at problem-solving, compassion and in wanting to improve circumstances for others.•Can fall into co-dependent relationships with those who are habitually irresponsible.

Value Buying Sort

How do you elicit your customers values ? There are a couple of methods for doing that. You can come straight out and ask, "What's important to you about X ?" (or "What's import for you in an X?")

Others would argue to keep it more simple and ask, "What do you want in an X" (DO NOT ask, "What do you NEED in an X?"). Then a prospect will come back with a list:

I need A&B

I want C&D

I'd like E.

This list is sorted in terms of their values hierarchy. You need to assess this from their answer.

THEN, you repeat this list back to them, EXACTLY as they stated it.. Builds sales rapport , big time. Nothing is music to a persons ears more than hearing what's important to them.

THEN you ask why do they have to have A etc. And very often you'll see a common thread in their answers. That will be their DBM ( = Dominant Buying Motive).

Now, as you write, we need to tie this into their buying strategy. I'm not sure if you are referring to the NLP type of buying strategy. In any case you get their buying strategy by asking about a successful purchase they have made, then picking up the steps in the strategy. Then as you are discussing the values (or their DBM) you have elicited frame your questions in the format / language of their buying strategy. Get them to run through it in their mind.

Also, when you close it's often good to work out if the person you are interacting with is OPTIONS oriented or PROCEDURAL. If they are inclined to follow procedures show them how buying this product or service follows a logical sequence. Put them in the middle of that sequence and they'll feel compelled to conclude it. Conversely, keep talking about value with the OPTIONS person finally arriving at the conclusion that ordering this product is the best way to keep their options open. (In the long term or in relation to the bigger picture)

Responsibility

To have control over your life, you have to accept that you are responsible for everything that happens to you. If you are a successful person, you know you are responsible and accept the full consequences of your action and behaviour. If you are not, you are liable to believe fate causes and controls all events that happen to you, so that you cannot change or control the way things happen.

Acceptance of personal responsibility begins with feeling strongly that you are responsible for all areas of your life, especially emotionally and physically. If you can accept and firmly believe this, you are in a good position for real accomplishment of all your aims or purposes in life. If however you think whatever happen to you is beyond your control, you passively allow an external power to decide or fix what will happen to you in a way that you cannot change or control. You let your life follow blindly a preordained path.

Everything happens as a result of a particular action. If you can understand the reason why something happens to you, you can take control over its cause and effect. What cause everything that happens to you are principally your thoughts and beliefs. You are responsible for choosing what to think or believe. If you think positively of a desirable outcome, that desired outcome will be realized. If you believe in a negative outcome, you will produce the unsuccessful end result.

You owe it to yourself to be wholly responsible for thinking and believing positively or confidently about yourself. When you believe strongly in your ability to attain your objectives, you will be driven to accomplish them. Your high expectations are just as important. When you are highly and cautiously optimistic in your expectations, there’s an excellent chance that they will be fulfilled. You build up your expectations, so do it in a responsible manner.

Your actions and attitudes result from your habits and beliefs that are firmly fixed in you. It’s your responsibility to strengthen and practise your good habits, and discard entirely the old habits however difficult and replace them with good ones. Form a habit of associating yourself with only positive-thinking people and avoid completely those who constantly think negatively.

Take control of your life by controlling your thoughts and accepting responsibility for all the things that happen in your life. If you believe you are totally controlled by outside forces such as fate, you are always under their power and it’s up to you to regain control of your life.

Trust / Distrust

Our convincer mode Meta program is about how we become convinced after we have gathered information in our convincer channel. We develop this through our experiences of trust. We may never believe anyone, or maybe we are prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt. It is part of our overall convincer strategy.

For most people, it takes more than one convincing piece of information to be confident that something is true. We might need a number of examples. We might need to do things with a person over a period of time before we trust her abilities.

Questions to find someone’s trust process

• How long do you have to consider something before it’s the right time to act?
• How often do you have to see a particular ad before you feel that maybe it’s worth a go?
• How do you know someone is good at her work?
• How many times does someone need to demonstrate ability before you are convinced she is competent?
• What do you need to be convinced that you know something?

Convincer Mode Types

Automatic Convincer Mode

This is where someone has an innocent until proven guilty kind of strategy. While giving people the benefit of the doubt can be very useful in many common tasks, trusting too much and too quickly can make you vulnerable. Shelle Rose Charvet says this is 8% of the population.

Downside

Jumping to conclusions and hallucinating trust without proof, especially with investment decisions, is risky. Consider if you have a sounds right convincer. Some smooth talking salesperson comes along and says what you want to hear. With an automatic convincer, you trust her right away. You could end up with a lot of useless expensive stuff.

We can have problems if we generalise this pattern too much. For instance, an automatic convincer might be useful in low risk situations, but not high-risk ones. “Ok, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt they can collect the mail, but maybe not take care of my best customer right away.”

Imagine for instance a young woman with an automatic convincer mode for men – trust whoever comes along absolutely until he proves he can’t be trusted. I know what you are thinking – “where can I find some of these people!”

Number of Examples Convincer Mode

Number of examples is the most common convincer. Here, the exposure is important in believability. A person would have to show they could do a job a certain number of times, before you “knew” she was capable. This is the dilemma many job seekers have. How do you get experience when employers won’t give you experience?

Have you ever told someone something a couple of times and he takes no notice only to repeat it back when hearing it somewhere else? As though it was something new. It’s as if they need critical mass before it registers in their brain.

Advertisers know this. They re present their message a number of times (six is usually enough for most), and it becomes not only familiar, but also believable.

The number of examples or times is usually consistent for the person. They always need three for instance (I’ll just get three quotes).

Downside

For most people, a message repeated a number of times in different contexts becomes truth. Is that disturbing? It is to me.

For instance, someone floats a rumor and a few people pick it up and pass it on like a virus, no one actually checks it out, but the number of people you hear it from is huge, which makes it real right? NOT! Can opinions ever be true? Do all the “experts” get information from the same place?

Over generalising can result in using the same number of examples for something low risk and something high risk. For instance, three examples might be fine to choose a book. Three minor experiences of trust are probably inadequate when choosing a business partner.

Period of Time Convincer Mode

A period of time convincer is the next most common strategy. This is where the person needs to have an idea or experience hold up over time. For instance, they might need to work with you for 6 months before they are convinced you can do the job. The actual amount of time is consistent for the person.

This is also a common problem job seekers face. How do you convince someone you have “enough” experience. I remember one public servant bragging how he had 20 years of experience. Someone then asked, “Is it 20 years of experience or 1 year repeated 20 times?”

Downside

Of course, time is a perception and therefore you can distort a person’s sense of time. Such as “I managed to pack 5 years experience into those 12 months”

Dating advice often involves period of time convincers. How often have you heard “Don’t ever get married to someone until you have been dating for 6 months (or some similar rule)?” If you spend a day with someone once a month, this doesn’t give you the same experience as 6 months on a boat 24/7.

There may be few opportunities to test trust in any particular period of time. Different circumstances trigger different responses. Someone who is fabulous when dating can turn out to be a total jerk when you are married to him or her. Sound familiar?

Never – also known as Consistent Convincer Mode

The skeptics of the world are almost never convinced. If you manage to get credibility with them on one occasion, you have to build it over again next time. I would think this makes for difficult relationships. Shelle Rose Charvet says this is 15% of the population.

It is similar to the automatic convincer mode, but at the other end of the scale – it is automatic distrust. Doubting skills are useful when doing quality control, or in the receiving department. Each batch is a new game. Just because every single widget from this company has been perfect, doesn’t mean it will always be the case.

As a scientific mindset, it questions everything and everyone. This is great for scientific advancement. Not so great for establishing long term relationships.

An extreme generalised never convincer will come across as a control freak. Imagine if you never accepted any basic skills of another. You wouldn’t be able to trust someone to do mundane tasks. What happens if you continually question people’s loyalty? It wouldn’t give them much incentive for commitment.

Also, they may never be convinced of their own capabilities. Continually questioning yourself can create self-doubt and low self-confidence.

Changing Your Convincer

The convincer mode Meta program develops with our early experiences of trusting and decisions. We also model our caregivers. What is sufficient evidence to trust? Therefore, Time Line Therapy and re-imprinting can change our responses to trust issues and negative associations.

NLP Reframing, is a powerful way to change this type of Meta program (where most of the problems come from over generalising). Where is the filter most useful? Where is it not useful? Make a distinction between low and high-risk situations.

Introvert / Extrovert / Ambivert

Most of us, when we hear the terms ‘introvert’ and ‘extrovert’, we basically think of two personality traits- shyness and non-shyness. But some people suggest that it's a very narrow way of looking at it and maintain that there’s much more to introversion and extroversion than just shyness and non-shyness. So they prefer more sophisticated definitions, such as:

Introvert: A person whose energy is directed inward and focuses more on the inner world.

Extrovert: A person whose energy is directed outward and focuses more on the outer world. 

Introverts care more about concepts and ideas whereas extroverts (or extraverts, as they're sometimes called) care more about people, things and events. Introverts need little external stimulation and may get easily over-stimulated when they go out in to the world. So they constantly seek some alone time. 

On the other hand, the over-stimulation threshold of extroverts seems pretty high and they often get bored and restless when they are alone.

Introverts prefer deep work and like working alone. Extroverts prefer more breadth in their work and are better team players than introverts. Introverts tend to think before they act while extroverts mostly think during the act or after it.

Ambiverts are people that show both extroversion and introversion from time to time.

Personally, I think the terms ‘introvert’ and ‘extrovert’ have been made redundant because many experts have come to the conclusion that no one is a pure introvert or a pure extrovert. So, in a way, we're all ambiverts. In other words, figuring out whether you're an introvert or an extrovert is a waste of time.

The dilemma of Tom

Tom loved knowing more about himself and his personality. When he came across the concepts of ‘introversion’ and ‘extroversion’, he couldn't decide what category he fitted in. He could think of past experiences that fitted both these categories. “Maybe, I'm an ambivert then” he thought. But that definition didn't satisfy him and he felt like he’s hanging in the balance.

Then he came to know that no one’s a pure introvert or an extrovert. So now he focused on knowing what his dominant trait was- introversion or extroversion. He asked friends and most of them thought he was an extrovert. He then asked some of his acquaintances and a couple of strangers. They thought he was an introvert.

He wasn't satisfied and so took some online tests, some of which concluded he was an introvert while the others said he was an extrovert.

Frustrated, he went to his parents. After all they were the people he had spent most of his time with. They should know him better. So he asked them and they said something like, “Son, you've displayed both these behaviours from time to time. We’re pretty sure you’re a mix of both, you’re an ambivert.”

Back to square one.

Personality is way more complex

While understanding your own or someone else’s personality, it is easy to fall into this trap of looking at things in a superficial way. People hear the terms ‘introvert’ and ‘extrovert’ and fill everything they observe into these two large buckets that they create inside their heads. This robs of them of the chance to look more deeply at human behavior and figure out the real motives and intentions behind certain personality traits.

A person may be an extrovert when he interacts with his best friend but an introvert when he interacts with you, an acquaintance. He may be embarrassed and shy about some things but open and confident about other things. He may prefer to be alone sometimes and seek stimulation and company at other times.

All these behaviours will depend on what types of beliefs that person has about the multifarious aspects of life. Then there are moods, emotional states and needs. There are way too many forces that shape human behavior and classifying all human actions under ‘introversion’ and ‘extroversion’ is sheer oversimplification.

I think we should completely discard the terms ‘introvert’ and ‘extrovert’ from our vocabulary. In a rather strange way, these terms only serve to overcomplicate the already complex phenomenon of personality by giving the illusion that personality is not so complex after all!